nationfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:King Arthur III of Lovia
Is it possible something is wrong with the dates ? 1909 birth and 2007 death = 98 years and then the 50 years on the other page ? Lars 18:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC) :Oops, I'll change it :) 18:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC) ::Well, he was indeed almost 100 (quite strong man), so I made a mistake on the other page. 18:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC) :::A fortiori! Lars 07:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ::::Hi Lars, good morning! Will you be at the Inauguration Day this afternoon? 07:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC) :::::Morning, I'll see if I can make it. Otherwise I'll be with all of ye in my thoughts. Lars 07:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC) :::::: Okay :) By the way: you're free to vote on two law proposals in the 2nd Chamber, one by me, one by Arthur. 07:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Featured Do you have some sort of a 'Featured Article' like system here, like they have on wikipedia? If so, then I would like to make this article a featured article. BastardRoyale 15:12, June 11, 2010 (UTC) :We do, but it's currently not in use. 06:25, June 12, 2010 (UTC) Revert I'm afraid we'll have to undo some of your edits here. It is site regulation that all users respect the exisiting Lovian context. That means that you cannot create articles on the state capital in 1900 if we have already decided it was only built in 1913. In this case, that also means you cannot change the biographies of our Kings. You understand that changing the bios of kings and queens is not the same as writing good biographies on your own characters. I must therefore ask you to let us revert these stories about illegitimate children and so. What you can do, is make a movie of this story; a sort of fictionalized biography 06:25, June 12, 2010 (UTC) :Well Dimi, he isn't the only one who makes 'children outside of marriage' a fetish of his. Remember the story of a hero? 07:10, June 12, 2010 (UTC) ::Well... a fetish? Does that not go very far? It is a love story, a story about a forbidden love, class differences and two bastard sons the king loved dearly. He always saw his mistress Veronica as his wife, and treated her as such with loyalty and respect. They are just that: bastard sons. Born out of wedlock, and not named "Noble" or "of Lovia". They are completely left out of the line of succession and do not alter history. BastardRoyale 07:18, June 12, 2010 (UTC) :::Yuri is making an allusion to Thomas Jefferson 07:19, June 12, 2010 (UTC) ::::Not really, I'm talking about the Freudian fetish here. Take for instance your user name. Nothing wrong with that, Russia is one of my (many) fetishes. @Dimitri: do you remember the hero of the lost cause who has many children outside of marriage? A real role model of you ask me. 07:21, June 12, 2010 (UTC) :::::Well then... no I don't. I just thought you were alluding to TJ 07:23, June 12, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I allude to my heroes, not yours. Can't we do it like this: change the two bastard sons by one bastard nephew whom he really cherished? It is a nice article. 07:30, June 12, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Nephew.. Alright; so how would that guy then be related? Whose son is he then? 07:32, June 12, 2010 (UTC) :I'd say we give the King (Lapin Trois) a brother who had a son outside of his marriage. Big disgrace for the royal family, though the king thought the child couldn't help it. Something like that? 07:39, June 12, 2010 (UTC) ::He already has (had) two brothers: King Lucas I and Prince Thomas ("my" father). 07:40, June 12, 2010 (UTC) :::Then give him a sister too, adding someone couldn't hurt right? 07:47, June 12, 2010 (UTC) ::So now you are changing history! Would it hurt so much to keep my story? I have worked it all out on Word files; I am planning a large series of articles on the Royal Family and also wish to expand articles of other monarchs. If you are going to revert all my work I should perhaps leave for another wikia like alternative history. Just give the old man his sons, it won't hurt anyone. The article used to be just a few lines, and I tried to stay as close to historical correctness as I could; what I did was add some elements from my own imagination. What's the harm in that? As I said: sons are born out of wedlock so they are left out the line of succession and nothing changes. BastardRoyale 08:25, June 12, 2010 (UTC) :::Please don't: we cannot afford to change the entire royal history... Please stick to more non-royal articles! 08:27, June 12, 2010 (UTC) ::I am not looking to change the entire history. If I would simply expand the excisting articles and look for facts from the excisting Lovian history to include them in. As for the royalty: I just picked Arthur III as my subject of interest. My goal will be to make it a beautiful article and also write several articles concerning him (like his Royal Stables, his farm on the countryside, his poetry, his familylife, his mistress, his horse, his writings, his sculpting, his fencing) and all that. :)BastardRoyale 08:35, June 12, 2010 (UTC) Help The page could do with some help. Anyone interested? ;-) BastardRoyale 14:58, June 18, 2010 (UTC) UC If the page is UC, who put on the template and whos working on it? I can't remember having put the tag on the page and it looks ugly. The FA-nomination is not going very well either. BastardRoyale 08:38, September 8, 2010 (UTC)